207 Cal. App. 4th 886
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- F.D., age 16, pleaded guilty to assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury, second degree burglary, and disobeying antigang injunction; two counts dismissed.
- Probation officer recommended regular supervision rather than commitment to Youth Facility.
- Prosecutor objected, arguing §707(d)(5) requires custodial placement and that 31 days already served should not count as confinement.
- Juvenile court sustained the petition and sentenced F.D. to probation plus 30 days in a juvenile hall with credit for time served.
- People timely appealed, contending the disposition violated §707(d)(5) by counting time served pre-disposition as confinement.
- Court addressed whether confinement plus probation could be a lawful disposition under Prop. 21 and whether time served can count toward the placement requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §707(d)(5) requires a new confinement beyond time served. | People argues time served cannot satisfy placement. | F.D. argues time served can count as placement and disposition may include probation plus confinement. | Disposition valid with probation plus 30 days in custody. |
| Whether pre-disposition time served can count toward the required confinement. | Time served should not count as placement. | Time served can become placement after disposition in a juvenile hall. | Time served may count; not contrary to statute or logic. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2002) (preserves judicial discretion under Prop. 21, including disposition choices)
- Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 995 (Cal. 2001) (avoids absurd statutory consequences)
- People v. Bartlett, 226 Cal.App.3d 244 (Cal. App. 1990) (plain meaning of 'subsequently' in statute)